Lentra vs. more resident storage
Give residents somewhere to put the things they own instead. A real alternative that solves the adjacent problem rather than this one.
The case for more resident storage
Storage cages or lockers are simple, cheap per unit, need no operator, break rarely and can be charged for monthly with almost no ongoing cost. Residents genuinely want storage, and in buildings with small flats it is frequently the more requested amenity of the two.
Where they actually differ
| Lentra | The alternative | |
|---|---|---|
| What it solves | Not owning the thing | Somewhere to keep the thing you own |
| Ongoing operation | Provider-run | Essentially none |
| Space per resident | Shared footprint | Dedicated volume each |
| Revenue | Rent or retail and rental income | Monthly storage fees |
| Resident cost | Per use | Per month, whether used or not |
We wrote this table, so read it accordingly. Nothing in it is ranked: the right answer depends entirely on which job your building needs doing.
Choose more resident storage
Residents are asking for storage specifically, the building has usable basement or undercroft volume, and you want an amenity with near-zero operating burden. It is a good product and it is not competing for the same need.
Choose a convenience hub
The complaint is not where to put things, it is not wanting to own or buy them in the first place. The two coexist comfortably: storage for what residents own, a hub for what they would rather not.
The money, honestly
Storage is cheap to build and close to free to run. Its cost is volume, usually in a basement with no better use. A hub costs a smaller footprint in a place people walk past every day, plus an operating relationship that continues. The comparison that matters is not cost per square metre, it is which problem your residents actually have, and those are different problems that happen to be solved inside similar-looking boxes.
How each one goes wrong
Every option on this page fails in a particular way. Knowing which failure you are signing up for is more useful than a list of benefits.
Storage fills up and stays full
A cage is rented to one resident whether they open it twice a year or never. That is a reliable revenue line and a poor utilisation story, and utilisation is what an asset manager eventually asks about.
It does not reduce ownership
Storage serves people who have already bought the thing. Where the complaint is the cost and clutter of owning a drill used twice a year, more storage is somewhere to put the problem rather than an answer to it.
A hub fails when the building genuinely needs storage
In small-flat schemes with no basement provision, residents asking for storage are asking for storage. Offering a convenience hub instead answers a question nobody put.
Questions worth asking before you decide
Ask these of us and of anyone else in the running. The answers separate the options faster than a feature table does.
- When residents raise this, are they saying they have nowhere to put their things, or that they would rather not buy them? The two sound alike in a survey and mean opposite things.
- Is there usable basement or undercroft volume, and what would fitting out a cage actually cost?
- What is the occupancy on any storage you already offer, and how long is the waiting list if there is one?
Asked about this comparison
Can a building do both?
Which one do residents ask for more often?
Does storage generate more revenue?
Still weighing it up for your building
Tell us the property. If something else suits it better, that is what the proposal will say.